Access to environmental information: right and limits

Public access to environmental information constitutes a fundamental element of the European legal order and a core instrument of modern governance.

At a time when decisions relating to energy, major infrastructure projects and industrial development have a direct impact on both the environment and economic stability, transparency operates not merely as a right to information, but as a mechanism of accountability, prevention of institutional distortions and enhancement of public participation.

Access to reliable data contributes to the formulation of evidence-based policies and to the improvement of the quality of public debate.

Transparency, however, does not operate in an administrative vacuum. The digitalisation of public administration, the ease with which requests may be submitted at minimal cost, and the increasing linkage of environmental issues with high-value economic interests have given rise to new challenges.

The essential question today is not whether the right of access should be protected, this is firmly established in EU law, but rather how it may be exercised without leading to abuse, administrative overload or the undermining of legal certainty, particularly in strategic sectors of the economy.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Against this background, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in its judgment of January 15 (Case C-129/24), addressed a highly topical and practical issue: whether member states are required to process requests for access to environmental information when such requests are submitted anonymously or under a pseudonym, without genuine identifying details and without a physical address of the applicant.

The case arose in Ireland. Coillte, a major forestry enterprise partly owned by the Irish state, received 130 requests for access to environmental information within a short period of time.

A significant number of these requests (97) were submitted anonymously or under pseudonyms, were identical or nearly identical in form, and did not include a physical address.

The company considered that this constituted a coordinated practice imposing an undue operational burden and requested confirmation of the applicants’ real names and current addresses. When no response was provided, it rejected the requests as invalid.

This was followed by internal review procedures and subsequent appeals before the Commissioner for Environmental Information, who found that rejection on grounds of “invalidity” was not justified.

The matter ultimately reached the high court, which referred preliminary questions to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of the concept of “applicant” and whether, under Directive 2003/4/EC and the Aarhus Convention, the disclosure of a real name and address may be imposed as a condition for access.

The ‘who’ without the ‘why’

The CJEU reaffirmed the core of the right. Access to environmental information is broad and does not depend on the invocation of a legal interest or the justification of the request. No public authority may require a citizen to explain why the information is being requested or assess the applicant’s motives.

The substantive contribution of the judgment lies in the distinction drawn between why the information is requested and who is requesting it. The former remains beyond scrutiny. The latter, however, may be subject to limited regulation.

The court held that the concept of “applicant” under Directive 2003/4 does not, as a matter of EU law definition, require the disclosure of a real name and address. At the same time, it ruled that EU law does not preclude national legislation imposing such identification requirements, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are respected.

In other words, such a rule must not be less favourable than comparable domestic procedural rules and must not render the exercise of the right practically impossible or excessively difficult.

Institutional and economic implications

The judgment is of particular significance in sectors where environmental information is closely linked to major investments and projects of strategic importance.

The uncontrolled submission of mass, identical or fully anonymous requests may result in administrative paralysis, delays, uncertainty and tangible economic costs, without a corresponding benefit to substantive environmental protection.

The CJEU seeks to shape a framework of balance. Transparency remains the rule, but it is not detached from the functional resilience of public administration or from the need for legal certainty.

The judgment of January 15 does not restrict environmental democracy within the European Union. On the contrary, it reinforces it institutionally, by underscoring that transparency is a right which requires rules in order to operate effectively.

For member states, and for any legal order applying Directive 2003/4, the objective is clear: to ensure genuine access to environmental information without undermining administrative efficiency or economic stability. It is there, ultimately, that the quality of European governance in the coming years will be tested.